Re: Backup throttling
От | Antonin Houska |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Backup throttling |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5256AC52.2040109@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Backup throttling (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Backup throttling
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/09/2013 08:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > There seem to be several review comments made since you posted this > version. I'll mark this Waiting on Author in the CommitFest > application, since it seems that the patch needs to be further > updated. Since it was waiting for reviewer, I was not sure whether I should wait for his findings and fix everything in a single transaction. Nevertheless, the next version is attached here. It fixes findings reported in http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130903165652.GC5227@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org As for units http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130903224127.GD7018@awork2.anarazel.de I'm not convinced about "MB" at the moment. Unfortunately I couldn't find any other command-line PG utility requiring amount of data as an option. Thus I use single-letter suffix, just as wget does for the same purposes. As for this http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130903125155.GA18486@awork2.anarazel.de there eventually seems to be a consensus (I notice now the discussion was off-list): > On 2013-09-03 23:21:57 +0200, Antonin Houska wrote: >> On 09/03/2013 02:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> >>> >>> It's probably better to use latches for the waiting, those have properly >>> defined interruption semantics. Whether pg_usleep will be interrupted is >>> platform dependant... >> >> I noticed a comment about interruptions around the definition of >> pg_usleep() function, but concluded that the sleeps are rather frequent >> in this applications (typically in the order of tens to hundreds per >> second, although the maximum of 256 might need to be decreased). >> Therefore occasional interruptions shouldn't distort the actual rate >> much. I'll think about it again. Thanks, > > The issue is rather that you might not get woken up when you want to > be. Signal handlers in postgres tend to do a > SetLatch(&MyProc->procLatch); which then will interrupt sleeps done via > WaitLatch(). It's probably not that important with the duration of the > sleeps you have. > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund // Antonin Houska (Tony)
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: